You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

As I have pointed out before, medieval medicine included the 'treatment' of having the sufferer walk round with a bag of dog faeces around his or her neck. Doubtless in some cases it 'worked'. Should we therefore use the technique today? I would say no, but if you wish to do so then please, just don't come near me! However, if you pay some charlatan good money for prescribing that 'cure' then more fool you. If he/she then tries to treat carcinoma or some other severe condition and claims that 'it works for me' then in my view, and probably the law in most enlightened countries, that is a criminal act.

A total of 57 systematic reviews, containing the 176 individual studies, focused on 68 different health conditions - and found there to be no evidence homeopathy was more effective than placebo on any.

Now, he has responded to criticism of the review by complementary medicine associations in Australia and Britain.

Click to expand...

"Unsurprisingly there has been considerable pushback from those who use or sell homeopathic remedies. Indeed the International Council for homoeopathy is currently leading a fundraising effort: not to fund better research, but to attack the NHMRC document,"

The article in question is a defense of homeopathy, which is the poster-child for unscientific medicine. Homeopathy is a 200 year old approach to treatment that is based entirely in pseudoscience and pre-scientific superstition. It has no legitimate defense, and so defending it requires distortion and misinformation.

We in the US certainly have our share of pure quackery; there's no denying it. After all, we have to take 'credit' for inflicting the likes of Joe Mercola, the ever-libeling conspiracy crank and hilariously off base scientist wannabe Mike Adams, Gary Null, Robert O. Young, and many others on the world. Unfortunately, we sometimes export our quacks elsewhere. Such was the case with expat Lynn McTaggart, who with her husband Bryan Hubbard moved to London to inflict their woo on our friends the Brits.

As soon as I write something critical about homeopathy, some people start claiming that I am biased. And as soon as even the most respected institution publishes a report on the subject, homeopaths insist that it is fatally flawed.

In September, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority wrote to all homeopaths informing them that it would be taking action against homeopaths that did not comply with the rules for making claims in advertising.

Click to expand...

Homeopaths have, of course, taken umbrage. Homeopaths want to be free to make any wild claim they dream up from their fantasy world of health where sugar pills cure serious illnesses.

Click to expand...

So, today, the Society of Homeopaths have issued a new press release saying they are taking legal advice on the status of the ASA.

Background
Homeopathy is gaining popularity globally, despite a lack of convincing evidence of its efficacy. For example, a 2015 review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo. However, a concern was that publication bias and outcome reporting bias could have influenced the results of the included systematic reviews.
Objectives
To study (i) the rates of non-publication and (ii) rates and types of alteration of planned outcomes of homeopathy studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Methods
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all homeopathy trials completed more than 2 years ago. We then checked the trial's publication status by examining the publication field in ClinicalTrials.gov, searching PubMed and finally Google Scholar. We also checked whether the registered primary outcome matched the published primary outcome.
Results
We found 35 registered homeopathy trials, from 11 countries, completed at least 2 years ago. Of these 35, we found 16 (46%) publications in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. In four (of 16), the primary outcome measures had been switched or modified.
Conclusions
Of all homeopathy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46% appear to have published within 2 years of completion, of which a quarter altered their primary endpoint. Further research is warranted on the nature and reasons for non-publication.